"Marxism commits the genetic fallacy"

[Catmatic Leftist]

If Communism were to be seriously critiqued, you would soon find that it's doctrine, at least in the strictly Marxist sense, contains many economic sophisms and philosophical fallacies. One of these fallacies include the genetic fallacy, which attributes a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing to be evidence that discredits that claim or thing. Some examples, in the negative, include, "Why did John solve the puzzle wrong?"
"Because John is black" <--- attributing to origin

It's obvious to note that being black doesn't cause John to solve the puzzle wrongly, but this is not the point. It is discrediting John by associating him with any type of origin that is fallacious. Race and class are among the most common. Marx, for instance, found that man is forced by his "interests" to think in a way so that the results convey his class interests. So the bourgeoisie, according to Marx, wouldn't necessarily "think" but would be driven by their own selfish interests, so he therefore concludes that history doesn't necessarily contain truths but ideologies. It should be strongly noted that Marx has opened himself up to serious objections.

If it were true that "interests" or "class consciousness" drives man to say or think in way so that the result conveys his own class interests, wouldn't all that Marx has ever said or ever written be a direct reflection of his own ideologies, "class-consciousness", or non-truths?

This is the ultimate objection towards Marx and his convictions towards bourgeoisie logic and economics. It should be evident that although Marx may have had good intentions from the get-go, his theory can't stand the light of hard logic and reasoning.

:confused:

[Aspiring Humanist]

Makes no sense at all, why would Marx's class consciousness mean its a non-truth?

[Thirsty Crow]

Marx, for instance, found that man is forced by his "interests" to think in a way so that the results convey his class interests. So the bourgeoisie, according to Marx, wouldn't necessarily "think" but would be driven by their own selfish interests, so he therefore concludes that history doesn't necessarily contain truths but ideologies.So let me get this straight: a person who claims that history (the recorded change and development of different social formations) "contains" "statements backed by empirical evidence" accuses someone of a blunder in reasoning and logic?

That's precious.

[DaringMehring]

First of all this looks like it was written by a sophomore philosophy undergraduate, so I'll take it as such. Therefore, let's leave aside the numerous stupidities and horrible prose flow and focus on the core point.

Author calls into question the idea of ideology and class consciousness.

Immediately apparent author has not read almost any Marx or other Marxist writing on the subject. Huge over-simplifications, use of words like "force," no mention of false consciousness. In fact the subject is incredibly nuanced and deep and the author obviously has no clue about it. Author is dealing with his/her own fantasy one-liner version of Marx -- that "Marx said class origin automatically determines every individuals thinking such that the individual always acts in their class interest."

So the core of the problem for the author, is that the author is trying to disprove a claim that they themselves fantasized.

Power, social reproduction, and so forth are beyond the pale for this person who clearly comes from the philosophical (I'll think it through in my head and figure out the truth!) rather than the sociological (lets examine the incredible complexities of society and try to get some understanding) side.

[Zealot]

This guy is using his own fallacy, the "strawman" argument.

I really don't see his argument at all to be honest, classes are just a convenient way to categorize people that meet certain standards. It's only genetic insofar as I would say that a racist kid is racist MOST LIKELY because his father was a nazi.

The bourgeoisie can become part of the proletariat if they wanted/had to and vice-versa.

[#FF0000]

So the core of the problem for the author, is that the author is trying to disprove a claim that they themselves fantasized.

This seems par for the course when it comes to people talking about Marxism, doesn't it?

[Thirsty Crow]

The bourgeoisie can become part of the proletariat if they wanted/had to and vice-versa.
And there would still be a capitalist class and a working class.

[Ocean Seal]

It is discrediting John by associating him with any type of origin that is fallacious. Race and class are among the most common. Marx, for instance, found that man is forced by his "interests" to think in a way so that the results convey his class interests.

Marx never conveyed this thought, this is quite a vulgar misinterpretation. It is natural for the majority of us to convey our class interests because our class is our reality. If we live in poverty it is natural that we want to improve our condition. And it is natural that the bourgeoisie having all of these excesses they would want to keep their power, this is a historical observation.



So the bourgeoisie, according to Marx, wouldn't necessarily "think" but would be driven by their own selfish interests, so he therefore concludes that history doesn't necessarily contain truths but ideologies. It should be strongly noted that Marx has opened himself up to serious objections.

Non-sequiter here.



If it were true that "interests" or "class consciousness" drives man to say or think in way so that the result conveys his own class interests, wouldn't all that Marx has ever said or ever written be a direct reflection of his own ideologies, "class-consciousness", or non-truths

Because of the first instance of non-sequiter, I don't find the need to answer this part.

[jake williams]

The above commentary is mostly correct.

I think, most simply, the person is saying that Marx argued that "there are no truths", only class interests, and thus Marx's work itself cannot be true, but simply a reflection of class interests.

The notion that Marx believed that "there are no truths" simplistically, ie. that the universe is totally relativistic and things are only real or true based on one's personal class perspective, is totally absurd. Marxism was mainly about bringing scientific materialism into historical and social analysis, not about philosophical relativism or solipsism - in fact, quite the opposite.

I think it's also something like a conflation of something like moral relativism - for example, that a certain action might be objectively right from the perspective of one class and objectively wrong from another - and factual relativism - all classes live in class societies, and this is objectively true from all perspectives.

[Desperado]

Marx recognises and states that his beliefs represent his material circumstances in his period of history - a reflection of the emerging proletarian class struggle. How this relates to "truth" is an entirely separate and very long philosophical argument which isn't touched on above. But for Marx it's pretty unimportant - he didn't care much about charges of relativism, he cared about getting on and changing the world.